Opinion filed October 1, 2009



### In The 

# Eleven th Court of Appeals

___________ 

### No. 1 1- 08 -0 00 45 -CV

____ ____ __ CRUZDOMING UEZ AS NEXT FRIEND OF ALE X DOM INGU EZ , AMIN OR, Ap pellant

V.
WALG REE N C OMP AN Y, Ap pellee

On App eal from the 238th Distric t Court
Midland County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. CV44,890

M E M O R

A N D U M O P I N I O N
Cr u z D o mi n g u e z f

il e d s u it a g a in s t W a l gr e e n

C o m p a ny f o r i n ju r ie s h e r s o n , A le x D o mi n g u e z,
rec eived in an e scalator incident i n a W alg ree n’s s tore. The trial court g rante d Walgr een’ s motion for summary

judgme nt, and Doming uez appea ls. W e af firm. On Dec ember

14, 1990, Cruz Dominguez went into Walgr eens w ith her son, Alex, who was fi ve y e ars old

a t th e tim e . Cr

uz’ s y oung e r s on , A nd

re w, and he r e ig hte e n- y e ar- old nie c e a lso

acc ompanied them to the store. Cruz was re turning Christmas lights when she notice d that Alex was2

no longe r beside he r. Cruz heard sc rea ming a nd went to the esc alator w here she found Alex. Alex

was c rying, a

nd he said that he fell and his hand g ot c aug ht in the esca lator. The esca lator had cut the skin on the top of Alex’s hand. A sec urity guard took Cruz and Alex to the hospital. Cruz originally

filed suit ag ainst Walgre en in May 1991; however , she filed a nonsuit in t hat

c a se . Cr uz re fi le d the su it in De c e mbe r 19 98 a nd a g a in fi le d a no ns uit

in Jun e 20 00 . Sh e fi le d s uit in Febr uary 2002 an d t h en fi l ed a nonsui t in May 2003. The c urre nt suit was filed in Dec ember 2004, and in it, Cruz allege d neg lige nce on the part o f W al gre en
. Walgr een f iled its mot ion for summary judgme nt in April 2007, and the trial cour t gr anted the motion on Octobe r 22, 2007. I n her sole issue on appea l, Cruz arg ues that the trial c ourt err ed in g ranting Walgr een’ s motion for summary

judgme nt. A trial court must g rant a motion for s u m m ary

judgme nt if the

mov ingpa

rt y e sta bli sh e s th a t no g e nu ine iss ue of mate ri a l fact

e xists and

that it is e nti tle d to judgme nt as a matter of law . T EX
. R. C IV
. P. 1 66 a (c ); Lear Siegler, Inc . v. Pe rez , 819 S.W .2d 470, 471 (Tex. 1991). I n order for a defe ndant to be entitled to summary ju d gm en t, it mus t either disprove an e lement of e ach c ause of action or e stablish an aff irmative def

ense a s a matter of

law. Am . To ba c c o Co . v . G rin ne ll , 951 S.W .2d 420, 425 (Tex. 1997). Once the m ovant establishes a rig ht to summar

y judgme nt, the nonmovant must c ome forwa rd with e vidence or law that p re cl udes summary judgme nt. City

of H ou sto n v . Cl e ar

Cre e k Ba sin Au th

. , 5 8 9 S. W. 2 d 6 7 1 , 6 7 8

- 7 9 ( T e x. 1979). When revie wing a tra ditional summ ary judgme nt, the appellate cour t co n s i d er s all the evidenc e and takes as true evidenc e favor able to the nonmovant. Am. Tobacco Co. , 951 S.W .2d at 42 5; Nixon v. Mr. Prop. Mgm t. Co. , 6 90 S.W. 2d 54 6, 54 8- 49 (T e x. 19 85 ). Th e a pp e llate c ourt

“ mus t
c on sid e r w he the r r e a so na ble and fa ir -m ind e d jur or s c ou ld dif fe r i n th e ir

c on c lus ion s in

lig ht o f a ll of the e vidence prese nted” a nd may not ignor e “undisputed e vidence in th e re co rd t h at cannot be disreg arde d.” Goodye ar Tire & Rubber Co. v. May es , 236 S.W .3d 754, 755, 757 (Tex. 2007). Ne g lig e nc e c o n s i s t s o f t h r e e e s s e n t i a l e l e m e n t s : ( 1 ) a l e g a l d u t y o w e d b y o n e p e r s o nto
ano the r; (2 ) a

br e a c h o f t

hat duty ; and

(3 ) d a ma g e s prox imate ly re su lti ngfr om t

he br e a c h. Duty is the threshold inquiry

. El Chi c o Co rp . v . P oo le , 7 32 S .W .2 d 3 06 , 3 11 (T e x. 19 87 ); Tra ns it M ix Concrete & Materials Co. v. Johnson , 205 S.W .3d 92, 94 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2006, pet. de nied). The pa rties ag ree that Cruz and Alex wer e invi tees on the W alg ree n’s premises. Premises owner s
and oc c up ie rs ow e a

duty to ke e p the ir pr e mis e s saf e fo r i nv ite e s a g a ins t kn ow n c on dit ion s th a t po se3

unrea sonable risks of harm. CMH Home s, Inc. v . Daene n , 15 S.W.3 d 97, 99 (T e x. 20 00 ); W al- Ma rt Stores, Inc. v. Gonzalez , 968 S.W .2d 934, 936 (Tex. 1998). This duty does not rende r the pre mises

owner an insurer

of the invitee’ s safe ty

. W al-Mart Stores, Inc. , 9 68 S.W. 2d a t 93 6. To pr ov e a

c la im

o f p re m i s es l i ab i l i t y , an ap p el l an tm u s t s h o w t h at (1 ) ap p el l ee h ad ac tu al o r c o n s t ru ct i v e k n o wl ed ge of some condition on the pre mises, (2) the c ondition posed an unrea sonab l e ri s k of har m, (3) appellee did not ex erc ise rea sonable car e to r educe or to e liminate the unrea sonable risk of ha rm, and (4) appellee’ s failure to use re asonable car e to re duce or to eliminate the unre asonable risk of har m p roxi mately

cause d appellant’ s injuries. LMB, Ltd. v. Moreno , 2 0 1 S. W. 3 d 6 8 6 , 6 8 8 ( T e x. 2 006). The summary

judgme nt evidence shows that the esca lator was wor king pr operly

on the day of the a c c ide nt. Th e re is no ev ide nc e of e sc a la tor ma lf un c tio n at the tim e of the a c c ide nt. Th e re is nothing in the summary

judgme nt evidence that indicates that the prope rly working esca lator posed

an unre asonable risk of har m. Cruz di d not establish that Walgre en bre ache d its duty of ca re. Cruz arg ues for

the first time on ap p ea l t hat the doctr ine of re s ipsa loquitor applies to the claims. R es ipsa loquitur applies “in ce rtain limited ty pes of c ases whe n the circ umstances surrounding the accident constit ute s ufficie nt evidence of the de fenda nt’s neg lige nce to support suc h a finding .” Haddock

v. Arnspiger , 793 S.W .2d 948, 950 (Tex. 1990). The r es ipsa loquitur doctrine applies only

when two fac tors are proved: (1) the char acte r of the acc ident is suc h that it would not ordinarily occur in the absenc e of ne g lige nce a nd (2) the instrumenta lity

causingthe injury

is shown to have be en under

the manag ement and c ontrol of the def endant. Id

. Re s ip sa

loq uit ur is n ot a separ ate c ause of

action for neg lige nce; inst ead, it is a rule of evidence by which neglig ence may be inferr ed by

the jury

. Id

. Alex wandere d awa

y from his mother , fell down, a nd injured his hand on an e scalator. Ther e is no evidence that the esca lator malfunctioned. The acc ident is not such that would occur only due to n e g lig e nc e . The re s ipsa loq uit ur do c tr ine is ina

pp lic a ble in t his c a se . M or e ov e r, Cr

uz f a ile d to

ra i s e r e s i p s a

l o qu i tu r i nt h e r e s p o n s e t o t h e m o t i o nf o r s u m m ar y j u d g m e n t

. C r

u z c an n o tr a ise res ipas loquitur for

the first time on appe al. Driskill v. Ford Motor Co. , 2 6 9 S. W. 3 d 1 9 9 , 2 0 6 ( T e x. App.—Texarkana

2008, no pet.). A summary judgme nt cannot be r ever sed on appe al base d on an issue that was not expressly and timely

prese nted to the tri al court by written re sponse or other document. T EX
. R. A PP . P. 33 .1 ; Ru le 16 6a (c ); see City of Houston , 5 89 S.W. 2d a t 67 7; Dr isk

ill ,4

269 S.W .3d at 206. Cruz did not p rese rve this complaint for r eview. Cruz’s sole issue on a ppeal is overrule d. The judg ment of the trial c ourt is affir med.

J I M R. W RI GHT

CH I EF JUSTI CE

October 1, 2009 Panel consists of: Wright, C.J ., M c C a l l , J. , an d

S t r an g e , J.